The 7th Bilbao Masters "final" (as defined by the Bilbao Masters organising committee) was held in Bilbao, Spain 14–20 September 2014. The tournament used the Sofia Rules, which forbids agreed draws before 30 moves, and the "Bilbao" scoring system of 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss (though for ratings purposes the traditional scoring method is used). (1)
Crosstable:

Everett: I praise Gelfand for the same reason; a professional who time and again shows how good he is when it counts. Not always of course, but more often then would be expected. He understands that all tournaments and matches are not created equal, and prepares accordingly.

Absentee: If I'd really wanted to be pedant, I'd have pointed out that Elo is a name and not an acronym. :-)

Would you also care to explain why raising the stakes makes an event more meaningful? And why hitting a peak during the WC qualifiers is more commendable than hitting a peak during another run of the mill top 10 tournament?

alexmagnus: And history of WC matches in Elo time speaks for Elo, by the way. Nobody ever won as the lower rated player when the difference was 80+ points. Twice a match was won with 60+ points differece, on both occasions by Kramnik - but Kramnik's rating against Topalov was still "damaged" by Kramnik's illness 2004-2005. So there is only <one> counterexample. Kramnik-Kasparov, where Elo gave Kramnik a 4% chance. Yes, once in a very big while a player with 4% chance wins. Big deal?

Karpov-Kasparov IV: draw (Kasparov retains the title as <40 point favourite>

Karpov-Kasparov V: Kasparov won as <70 point favourite>

Kasparov-Short: Kasparov won as <150 point favourite>

Kasparov-Anand: Kasparov won as <70 point favourite>

Kramnik-Kasparov: Kramnik won as <77 point outsider>

Kramnik-Leko: Kramnik won as <29 point favourite>

Kramnik-Topalov: Kramnik won as <70 point outsider>

Anand in Mexico was rating favourite.

Anand-Kramnik: Anand won as <9 point favourite>

Anand-Topalov: Anand won as <18 point outsider>

Anand-Gelfand: Anand won as <64 point favourite>

Anand-Carlsen I: Carlsen won as <95 point favourite>.

So, of 16 <matches> with a <declared result>, only four were won by rating outsiders. In two of them the rating difference was insignificant (18 and 20 points respectively), and Kramnik's rating against Topalov was "damaged"...

mkrk17: Not sure why so much research here on ratings. Noone is denying the importance of ratings. Everyone agrees that Fab's ratings is absolutely fabulous. Only thing we are saying is that it doesn't automatically qualify him for a shot at the WC. If he is as good as his ratings, then let him succeed in the candidates. Its obvious that you won't get a candidates tournament the moment your ratings shoot up. Let him wait, play, win. Aronian has been ratings no.2 for long time. He didn't make it thru any candidates so far. Am not saying that Fab will not make it. I too want to see Fab taking a shot at the WC. Am just saying that he needs to prove his worth in the candidates.

nok: That every "classical" game, including 3-move draws, is weighed 1 while every rapid game is weighed 0 in standard Elo is of course a somewhat arbitrary simplifying assumption. Not that it'll stop our little accountants here.

Everett: <5-14 nok: That every "classical" game, including 3-move draws, is weighed 1 while every rapid game is weighed 0 in standard Elo is of course a somewhat arbitrary simplifying assumption. Not that it'll stop our little accountants here.>

Absentee: <nok: That every "classical" game, including 3-move draws, is weighed 1 while every rapid game is weighed 0 in standard Elo is of course a somewhat arbitrary simplifying assumption.>

It's not an assumption, it's a fact. Games are categorized according to playing conditions, not how they're played. That would be somewhat problematic: how short is a short draw? 4 moves? 9? As long as it's still theory? What if a player spends 10 minutes and the other one an hour? Etc.

mkrk17: <Arihant: After Nov 2013 WCC, what was the underlyig philosophy that FIDE had to organize it again in Nov 2014.> The goof up was between 2012 and 2013. Poor Anand had to play 2 WC's in 2 consecutive years. Also, in 6 years from 2007 - 2013, Anand had to play 5 WC's. Isn't that ridiculously unfair ?

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.